50:22 and more to be globally trialled by WR

[McTallshort]

Not having tactical subs so as to reduce injuries is a new one to me. One of the arguments for tactical subs I always heard was to reduce injuries...when you're tired injury risk goes up as probably the risk of getting lazy with tackle height.

My plea to World Rugby, one year on from player safety letter

The issue of player welfare has never been more burning, as more and more players come forward to testify to the dangers of the modern game

www.telegraph.co.uk

Lions legends urge World Rugby to abolish substitutes in bid to make sport safer

Plea from likes of Sir Ian McGeechan comes following a gruelling Lions tour and comments by Bill Beaumont to the Telegraph last year

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[McTallshort]

How would rucking reduce concussions?

Good question, well presented.

Being totally honest it's more down to playing experience than any science, more a belief than a fact, so I'm happy for you to disagree and show me evidence to the contrary.

I was playing when rucking as it was in its older form stopped. As a flanker I tended to be the first player to the breakdown (depending on fitness levels that week). When rucking over the ball you would simply plant your foot on the ball and move it backwards. If an opposing player was in the way they would be also be moved using the same technique and as long as there was no contact with the face and neck and you didn't stamp (drive the foot forward and down) he was fair game and knew this, tending to get out the way sharpish. If the opposition got more numbers to the breakdown they could counter ruck the same way. What it normally meant was you went into the ruck with your head up focusing on the ball. Players on the wrong side got out of the way quicker and the ball came out quicker.

Now when this was banned (unsure on the exact date) when getting to a breakdown you had to focus on the opposition player and not the ball. You had to shift the player off the ball which would involve you going in a low body angle and knocking the player back with your shoulder. This looked better on the TV cameras than players being popped out the back of rucks covered in boot marks but in reality was much harder on both the defending and attacking team. When you clear a ruck out now you are effectively tackling a player without the ball using your shoulders. I found that incidents of me being clattered off a ruck when a shoulder caught my head or I misjudged a clearout and banged heads with someone increased greatly. I was in my mid 20s at this point, been playing rugby since I was 8 and had never suffered a concussion (being a kid of the 80s I had suffered with them doing other forms of mischief but not rugby) but I started to get them on at least a monthly basis and I did pack in playing rugby at that point because I was suffering from mild memory loss.

My belief that rucking will reduce concussions is totally down to personal experience but if you want a good example of what I mean watch a clear out on Richard Hibbard during the 2013 Lions test (think it was the first test) how he got up and carried on playing I will never know.

 

[stus768]

Good question, well presented.

Bit of unnecessary sarcasm. Merry Christmas to you too.

 

[Yulia]

Not having tactical subs so as to reduce injuries is a new one to me. One of the arguments for tactical subs I always heard was to reduce injuries...when you're tired injury risk goes up as probably the risk of getting lazy with tackle height.

It's a very interesting point to be honest. I was also thinking that tactical substitutions should reduce injuries and not the opposite. But now would agree with Tallshort's point of view

 

[McTallshort]

Bit of unnecessary sarcasm. Merry Christmas to you too.

I actually wasn't being sarcastic. Sorry if you felt I was being

 

[stus768]

As Tallshort says it's about the players. But 9 times out of 10 I think that bench being emptied just spoils the flow of the game.

I don't know what it's like in the amateur game now, but I assume that there simply aren't the players for large benches. But as an ex front rower if I'd regularly only been getting 50 or 30 minutes I'd have demanded reduced subs and rapidly found myself something else to do on a Saturday afternoon.

At a lot of lower levels 1st teams are only allowed 3 subs on the bench.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Good question, well presented.

Being totally honest it's more down to playing experience than any science, more a belief than a fact, so I'm happy for you to disagree and show me evidence to the contrary.

I was playing when rucking as it was in its older form stopped. As a flanker I tended to be the first player to the breakdown (depending on fitness levels that week). When rucking over the ball you would simply plant your foot on the ball and move it backwards. If an opposing player was in the way they would be also be moved using the same technique and as long as there was no contact with the face and neck and you didn't stamp (drive the foot forward and down) he was fair game and knew this, tending to get out the way sharpish. If the opposition got more numbers to the breakdown they could counter ruck the same way. What it normally meant was you went into the ruck with your head up focusing on the ball. Players on the wrong side got out of the way quicker and the ball came out quicker.

Now when this was banned (unsure on the exact date) when getting to a breakdown you had to focus on the opposition player and not the ball. You had to shift the player off the ball which would involve you going in a low body angle and knocking the player back with your shoulder. This looked better on the TV cameras than players being popped out the back of rucks covered in boot marks but in reality was much harder on both the defending and attacking team. When you clear a ruck out now you are effectively tackling a player without the ball using your shoulders. I found that incidents of me being clattered off a ruck when a shoulder caught my head or I misjudged a clearout and banged heads with someone increased greatly. I was in my mid 20s at this point, been playing rugby since I was 8 and had never suffered a concussion (being a kid of the 80s I had suffered with them doing other forms of mischief but not rugby) but I started to get them on at least a monthly basis and I did pack in playing rugby at that point because I was suffering from mild memory loss.

My belief that rucking will reduce concussions is totally down to personal experience but if you want a good example of what I mean watch a clear out on Richard Hibbard during the 2013 Lions test (think it was the first test) how he got up and carried on playing I will never know.

Yep. Agree with this.

Old style rucking allowed you to give the opponents a bit of shoe pie which everyone accepted as part and parcel of being in the wrong place. Problem was when that crossed the line in to stamping particularly if it involved the head or joints. At the top level that simply wouldn't be an issue now with video refs.

You're quite right to use the phrase tackling without the ball. In my book the whole lm my concept of clearing out is far worse than a few stud scrapes from a ruck. You have players who are fairly passive or outright prone being taken out by 20 stone missiles. Concussions are rightly the big concern, but all manner of other damage is being done too.

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[DragonCraig45]

I still think this rule catches commentators out. They click on when they see the refs signals.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I've watched some 6N & Rugby Europe games and there does seem to be an impact from the announced efforts to reduce TMO and speed up the set piece. Hopefully its not just a coincidence. I dont think I've seen a dumb winter water break yet either.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

On reflection I'm personally not comfortable with a quick lineout on a 50:22. Scotland tried one against SA and it was rightly cslled back. The Wallabies scored against Fiji with one. It is chaotic and puts way to much power in the hand of a touch judge who effectively decides in an instant, if a try is scored or not based on their opinion on where the mark is. Retaining possession at a 50:22 is enough of an advantage surely? It kind of feels like a cheap way to score.

I suppose all defenders could madly sprint back every time the ball is kicked by the opponent from their own half, on the off chance there is a 50:22 but I don't think that is an intention of the rule. Or perhaps you keep two players back and prioritise touching the ball when it goes out of touch and/distrupting the lineout?

Hmm, I might have talked myself back into liking the quick lineout option :S

 

[NeilH]

World Rugby will globally trial the 50:22 kick and new breakdown laws https://the42.ie/5494793

50:22
Goal-line drop outs.
No pre-bound pods prior to receiving ball.
Stricter focus on one player latches remaining on feet and through the gate.
No targeting/dropping weight onto the lower limbs of a defender.

Sounds like Rugby League to me

 

[Which Tyler]

In what way?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

50:22 and goal line dropouts were lifted from Rugby League tbf,

I was sceptical of both, initially, but like them now - especially 50:22

 

[Which Tyler]

50:22 and goal line dropouts were lifted from Rugby League tbf,

I was sceptical of both, initially, but like them now - especially 50:22

Fair enough - I didn't know that.
Happily stand (well, sit) corrected.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Sounds like Rugby League to me

2 and a half years late to the party....nice

50:22 and goal line dropouts were lifted from Rugby League tbf,

I was sceptical of both, initially, but like them now - especially 50:22

yeah....hate to say it but me too...kind of tempted to see what would happen if we allowed the other way too 22:50....get teams really working on their exits